The second failed test launch of Russia's experimental Bulava (R-30 SS-NX-30) submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) in as many months has renewed doubts about the viability of the country's strategic nuclear deterrent, and in turn increased fears that Russian policy makers might adopt "hair-trigger" operational procedures to guarantee that their nuclear forces could survive and respond to a first strike.

The Bulava is a three-staged missile designed to carry up to six individually targeted nuclear warheads for a range of approximately 8,000-10,000 kilometers. The two back-to-back failures have effectively suspended the test program. Previously, the missile had been scheduled to enter service in 2008, after completing at least ten additional test launches.

The missile tested on Oct. 25 automatically self-destructed after veering off course three minutes after launch from the Dmitry Donskoy nuclear submarine in the White Sea. The target had been a testing range in the far-eastern Kamchatka Peninsula. The previous Bulava test launch, from the same submarine on Sept. 7, also failed when the missile fell into the sea one minute after takeoff. Following the first mishap, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said the government had become concerned about the viability of the maritime component of Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent. In February 2004, the navy experienced two embarrassing failures during tests of its older SLBMs when, in the presence of President Vladimir Putin, one missile failed to launch and a second exploded shortly after takeoff. The short time between the Bulava launches would suggest a rushed, if now evidently counterproductive, effort to set aside doubts about the missile.

Infact I don't know why Russia needs a nuclear deterrent.They have enough nukes to blow up the world thrice. As for their Bulava SLBM's they don't need them. They have enough Typhoon class nuclear submarines equipped with nuclear weapons which is pretty much world class. Plus they have more ICBM's and SLBM's then the United States. The Topol M might be old but it is very very effective. Plus it has a very high yield. America may have ICBM's which are have far more accuracy and precison but Russia has weapons with more yield. Russia also possesses long range nuclear bombers like the BlackJack. I guess the Black Jack's go back to the Cold War era but still havent been retired by the Russian Air Force. Russia has currently the world's largest nuclear arsenal with which they can do more damage to America , the EU and China i.e if it comes to an allout war which won't happen anyways.Not with Russia.Plus Russia has bio-wepaons facilities in Pokrov and other Chem weapons centers which are still active. I feel Russia won't be participating in a global war anymore. Moscow is concentrating more on the Russian economy and internal matters like Georgia , Ukraine etc. etc. Sure military is still the prime focus of the Kremlin but not as drastic as the Cold War. Russia has right now nothing to gain with a war against America and Chian. I am sorry if I am deviating away from the topic but it is important. Russia is more keen on exporting their missiles to their prime defence partners like India and China. So , basically I wouldn't be worried IF i were the Russian President.

Infact I don't know why Russia needs a nuclear deterrent.They have enough nukes to blow up the world thrice. As for their Bulava SLBM's they don't need them. They have enough Typhoon class nuclear submarines equipped with nuclear weapons which is pretty much world class. Plus they have more ICBM's and SLBM's then the United States. The Topol M might be old but it is very very effective. Plus it has a very high yield. America may have ICBM's which are have far more accuracy and precison but Russia has weapons with more yield. Russia also possesses long range nuclear bombers like the BlackJack. I guess the Black Jack's go back to the Cold War era but still havent been retired by the Russian Air Force. Russia has currently the world's largest nuclear arsenal with which they can do more damage to America , the EU and China i.e if it comes to an allout war which won't happen anyways.Not with Russia.Plus Russia has bio-wepaons facilities in Pokrov and other Chem weapons centers which are still active. I feel Russia won't be participating in a global war anymore. Moscow is concentrating more on the Russian economy and internal matters like Georgia , Ukraine etc. etc. Sure military is still the prime focus of the Kremlin but not as drastic as the Cold War. Russia has right now nothing to gain with a war against America and Chian. I am sorry if I am deviating away from the topic but it is important. Russia is more keen on exporting their missiles to their prime defence partners like India and China. So , basically I wouldn't be worried IF i were the Russian President.

Akshay

Click to expand...

The huge arsenal of nuclear devices does not protect against a first strike. When it was a 'war' between Western/Western influenced nations with nuclear weapons, mutual assured destruction worked, nervously, but it worked. Not so much anymore.

The huge arsenal of nuclear devices does not protect against a first strike. When it was a 'war' between Western/Western influenced nations with nuclear weapons, mutual assured destruction worked, nervously, but it worked. Not so much anymore.

Click to expand...

If it came to an allout nuclear war between lets say USA and Russia ...Russia would win becuase it can abosorb a first strike. Even IF America bombed Russia thrice still Russia could obliterate every major city in the Continental States. Russia has uncountable mobile road launchers which can be anywhere within Russia. Russia has so many silos and launching stations.America's missile defence system is YET not completely ready to stop long range Russian ICBM's and SLBM's.The Russians could just keep throwing their "birds" at America continuosly (This was actually a Soviet plan in the Cold War era to bomb every major city in USA continuosly by nukes containing multiple warheads). How many nukes can the Patriots stop ? I agree that "The huge arsenal of nuclear devices does not protect against a first strike" but Russia dosen't need so many SLBM's. The nuclear deterrent issue is no justification for Russia to test yet another SLBM. Russia already has enough missiles...As I said more then enough to take down the world.And only a country which wants to commit Hara Kiri would attack ONE of the most powerful nuclear powers.

If it came to an allout nuclear war between lets say USA and Russia ...Russia would win becuase it can abosorb a first strike. Even IF America bombed Russia thrice still Russia could obliterate every major city in the Continental States. Russia has uncountable mobile road launchers which can be anywhere within Russia. Russia has so many silos and launching stations.America's missile defence system is YET not completely ready to stop long range Russian ICBM's and SLBM's.The Russians could just keep throwing their "birds" at America continuosly (This was actually a Soviet plan in the Cold War era to bomb every major city in USA continuosly by nukes containing multiple warheads). How many nukes can the Patriots stop ? I agree that "The huge arsenal of nuclear devices does not protect against a first strike" but Russia dosen't need so many SLBM's. The nuclear deterrent issue is no justification for Russia to test yet another SLBM. Russia already has enough missiles...As I said more then enough to take down the world.And only a country which wants to commit Hara Kiri would attack ONE of the most powerful nuclear powers.

Click to expand...

Russia is not our most serious threat, not anymore. This was from early 2001:

The state that the Russian military is and has been in, should be considered a threat to its immediate neighbors.

Our concerns are currently more from your neck of the woods.

Click to expand...

I never said that Russia was a threat. I was just trying to prove that Russia dosent need any more so called "nuclear deterrents"

The situation I gave was IF and IF it came to an allout nuke war which will never happen anyways! And might I add IF and I say IF again the above scenario happens America might emerge the ultimate winner because of its superior air power and navy but US may lose NY , Washington , LA , Chicago , and San Francisco in the process!

I never said that Russia was a threat. I was just trying to prove that Russia dosent need any more so called "nuclear deterrents"

The situation I gave was IF and IF it came to an allout nuke war which will never happen anyways! And might I add IF and I say IF again the above scenario happens America might emerge the ultimate winner because of its superior air power and navy but US may lose NY , Washington , LA , Chicago , and San Francisco in the process!

Akshay

Click to expand...

Not quite sure how you can say that, they face more of a threat than we do:

Not quite sure how you can say that, they face more of a threat than we do:

Chechnya

Click to expand...

I am sorry but I have to disagree. America has the worlds most dangerous terrorist Bin Laden and his gang AL QAEDA/Taliban against them. America has strong long term threats like Irana nd N.K not to mention China who are actually competing against the trillion dollar US economy and military.

I am sorry but I have to disagree. America has the worlds most dangerous terrorist Bin Laden and his gang AL QAEDA/Taliban against them. America has strong long term threats like Irana nd N.K not to mention China who are actually competing against the trillion dollar US economy and military.

Do you mean to say Russia needs nukes against Islamists in Chechenya?

Click to expand...

For both Russia, US the threat is more from terrorists with dirty bombs-state sponsored, which in case one went off, would be determined. Really, I have no doubt of that.

For both Russia, US the threat is more from terrorists with dirty bombs-state sponsored, which in case one went off, would be determined. Really, I have no doubt of that.

Click to expand...

Agree. We still growl at each other because someone said we're supposed to, but the mutual desire for self-preservation has overidden any rash decisions by either side.

The real problem is when fanatics who think there is something to gain by taking your enemy with you get their hands on WMDs.

Akiboy's argument of who would win in a nuclear war between the US and Russia is moot. How does one win a war if th entire Earth is rendered uninhabitable? The "chosen few" may get to hide out in well-stocked bunkers for awhile, but for all intents and purposes, life on Earth will cease to exist.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!